DCIT INTL TAX CIR-4(3) (2) (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WIN ON SHIPPING, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a TRC for the entire period is not an absolute bar to claiming treaty benefits, provided sufficient evidence of residency is produced. The CIT(A)'s decision to grant the benefit was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Dubai-based shipping company, claimed exemption for freight income under the India-UAE DTAA. The Assessing Officer denied this benefit as the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) provided was not valid for the entire relevant previous year.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for treaty benefits despite not providing a valid TRC for the entire relevant period. Whether Section 90(4) of the Income Tax Act is a bar to claiming treaty benefits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 90(4),Section 143(3),Section 144C(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Secro BPO (P.) Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Ruling13 citing379 ITR 256 · 2015 · HC
- Skaps Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, International Taxation, Ahmedabad7 citing171 ITD 723 · 2018 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, I BENCH, MUMBAI
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 17.08.2021, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as ‗the CIT(A)‘] for the Assessment Year 2015-16, whereby the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 11.01.2018, passed under Section Assessment Year: 2015-16
144C(3) read with Section 143(3) of the Act
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 144C(3)
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Neha Hiranand Motwani, Nashik vs ITO International Tax, NashikITA 1570/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Atc Tires Private Limited, Mumbai vs The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 6468/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026